Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH).
COVID-19
Ethnicity
Healthcare worker
PPE
Personal protective equipment
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jul 2022
05 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
18
11
2021
accepted:
15
06
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
8
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Ten thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67-0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61-0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis. Only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ten thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67-0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61-0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35790970
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08202-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08202-z
pmc: PMC9255515
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
867Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19004
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : WT 202849/Z/ 16/Z
Organisme : NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre
ID : NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : AA/18/3/ 34220
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : ACF-2018-11-004
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research Applied research collaboration East Midlands
ID : National Institute for Health Research Applied research collaboration East Midlands
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/V027549/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P00167X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 204801/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : CDF-2017-10-008
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : NIHR301192
Organisme : Academy of Medical Sciences
ID : SBF005\1047
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
Manish Pareek
(M)
Laura Gray
(L)
Laura Nellums
(L)
Anna L Guyatt
(AL)
Catherine John
(C)
I Chris McManus
(IC)
Katherine Woolf
(K)
Ibrahim Abubakar
(I)
Amit Gupta
(A)
Keith R Abrams
(KR)
Martin D Tobin
(MD)
Louise Wain
(L)
Sue Carr
(S)
Edward Dove
(E)
Kamlesh Khunti
(K)
David Ford
(D)
Robert Free
(R)
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ. 2020 Jun 10;369:m2195
pubmed: 32522737
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 5;10(11):e040503
pubmed: 33154060
J Public Health (Oxf). 2022 Jun 27;44(2):234-245
pubmed: 33200200
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 11;15(11):e0242185
pubmed: 33175877
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Jun 03;23:100404
pubmed: 32632416
Lancet. 2020 May 23;395(10237):1608-1610
pubmed: 32401714
Biom J. 2020 May;62(3):724-741
pubmed: 32052492
Lancet. 2014 Dec 20;384(9961):2174
pubmed: 25625381
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2021 Jul 19;376(1829):20200268
pubmed: 34053255
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Dec 12;63(49):1172-4
pubmed: 25503922
Infect Prev Pract. 2021 Sep;3(3):100141
pubmed: 34316583
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 20;11(1):e046199
pubmed: 33472794
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Oct;9:100180
pubmed: 34308406
Resuscitation. 2020 Nov;156:146-148
pubmed: 32976961
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 17;11(9):e050647
pubmed: 34535484
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Nov 16;18(22):
pubmed: 34831767
BMJ. 2021 Mar 15;372:n602
pubmed: 33722904
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Aug;25:100466
pubmed: 32840492
Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1421-1422
pubmed: 32330427
Lancet. 2015 Feb 7;385(9967):503-4
pubmed: 25705834
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Sep;5(9):e475-e483
pubmed: 32745512
Lancet. 2021 Jul 31;398(10298):389-390
pubmed: 34332680